Archive for October, 2017

It’s Halloween time again, and people have trotted out the list of costumes that cannot be worn without offending people. Topping the list, Moana (based on a Hawaiian girl). Of course, I find this silly, and of course, the instant comeback is “Well, I guess you are okay with blackface,” or some similar remark. Now, I am the type of person who demands my thought process be consistent. So I have decided to explore this issue and come to a conclusion… can I defend blackface, as this is the backstop of all such arguments. In addition, I will cover some other costumes which have been outlawed by the PC police. Let’s go with… Indian Chief with headdress and Border Patrol Officer.

First, let’s look at Moana. Why would a white girl want to dress as Moana? Probably why she admires her. I doubt she is trying to appropriate Hawaiian culture. Instead, she wants to emulate the aspects of this character. This admiration would increase the child’s desire to learn about Hawaiian culture. It would also make the child less likely to discriminate against Pacific Islanders. So why on earth would you want to stop her? Okay, so what if a black child wants to dress like Braveheart or a knight? What’s wrong with that? Maybe he loves freedom. Maybe he loves chivalry? Does anyone want to tell the child that he cannot be a knight because only whites can be knights in shining armor? What the hell kind of message does that send? Can only Japanese dress as samurai? Now if you say “Well, these are relics from the past and the rules do not apply to knights (etc).” How does that argument stand up against the Indian Chief?

Well, that brings to my next point. What if someone wants to dress as an Indian Chief? Well, the first thing I would want to determine is…why would someone want to dress up as an Indian Chief? Are they trying to mock Native Americans? Probably not. They probably want to dress like that because Native American headdresses are so badass and flashy. Let’s be frank. They are awesome. Why would a blonde want to dress like a Japanese geshia? Probably because she thinks she’ll look smoking hot in a sleek kimono. I don’t believe that these people’s first thought is to offend.

Let’s assume then that you can be a black Superman. You can be a white Storm. Let’s also assume that you are allowed to paint your face as long as it does not have to do with race. So a girl can paint her face green to be the Wicked Witch from the Wizard of Oz. So can a black guy paint his face white to be a more accurate Superman? Can a white girl paint her face to be a more accurate Storm? Does the intent matter? Does wanting to be more accurate (which is really no different than painting your face green for the Wicked Witch) matter? I think most people would say “No, you cannot do this without offending people.” At this point, I have to ask why? Well, I think we need to look at the history of blackface. As with most things, it’s hard to really pin this down. I have heard that it was a case of not having black actors and having to make do with blackface. This was particularly true in England (etc). It’s important to remember that this wasn’t JUST an American phase. I have also heard that it was because white actors didn’t want to act with black actors. Another thing I have heard was that they wanted to make fun of blacks (would conjecture that this goes along with the last point and/or they didn’t think they could hire blacks to make fun of blacks). So, the history of blackface is closely tied to a history of mocking blacks. The question then becomes, “Well, is it FOREVER tied to mocking blacks?” And… “Since there is no history of whiteface for mocking whites, is that allowed?” If Chris Rock decided to use whiteface to mock whites, do you think that would be allowed? I think it WOULD be allowed. Should it be allowed? Eh…I think not. If we are going to have prohibitions on transrace, then we cannot have that. What about if someone wants to paint their face black but not because they are trying to pass for a black person, but because they are going as some sort of inanimate object which happens to be black (say, like a scorched tree or some such thing).

Transrace… what about transsexual? Can a man dress up as Wonder Woman? Can a woman be Thor? Can a man just dress as a woman just for kicks? This used to be just fair game. Did the rules get even more complicated by the whole transsexual movement? Is a man dressing up as a woman offensive to both women and men who identify as women? Can only a transsexual man dress as a woman now? What if you’re not transsexual but your a transvestite? Whooooa… this whole thing is getting tricky. Is even worse if the man does a very poor job dressing as a woman so that it’s actively making fun of transsexuals/transvestites?

So what about purposefully provocative outfits like the Border Patrol agent? Well…are you saying that the Border Patrol is the new SS? Is the Border Patrol a hate group? A bunch of storm troopers? What does that say about the traditional “cop” outfit? Is that taboo as it might be offensive to the Black Lives Matter crowd? But let’s go into something worse than that. What about someone who goes as an abortion doctor? Or Hitler? Or the twin towers with flames and airplanes coming out? All of these have really happened. What about someone that dresses as culture or blackface with the expressed purpose of making fun of them (think drunk Irish, inbred hick, or blackface)?

Then there’s this. What if only one person gets offended. If one modern day Wiccian says “Witch costumes are offensive because they perpetuate stereotypes.” This this happens, I hazard to think that no costumes would be left in short order. Do you say, “Well, one person being offended is unimportant, but 20 million being offended is important!” Basically, do you feel that freedom of speech should be abridged? Make no mistake, dressing up as anything is merely freedom of speech in another form. That’s all.

Eminem did a god-awful freestyle rap against Trump. In it, he gave an impression of at Trump supporter being an ignorant hick, and I was offended. But if someone dressed up as a hick for Halloween and acted like an ignorant redneck, I would not be offended. Why? Because it’s Halloween. Because it’s all in good fun.

So, there are two types of offensive costumes. There is the unintended offensive. This is mostly cultural appropriation offensive. If your only reason for picking a costume is that it looks cool or you actually appreciate the culture you are “appropriating,” then I’d say carry on. If you mean no offense. No offense should be taken. If we don’t have this very basic level of tolerance, you may as well just cancel dressing up all together, for it will never end. Then there is there is the intentionally offensive. When someone dressed up as the world trade towers on fire, they are trying to get people offended. This is probably the same thing when someone does blackface. Honestly, the best course of action is to ignore them. Giving them attention of any kind is exactly what they want. I would say that any costume whose sole point is to mock people shouldn’t be done. But good people probably realize this. Even though I would argue for having a sense of humor over “banning” a costume, good manners would dictate that you shouldn’t mock someone. If you’re design of a costume is trying to piss anyone off (let alone a specific group of people), you’re probably going down the wrong route. If you are trying to make people laugh by mocking a group of people (like a drunken leprechaun costume), you’re probably going down the wrong road. That being said, again, I’d prefer you choose to laugh rather than to get angry if someone dresses in such a manner, as I would laugh at someone making fun of Southerners (in any number of ways). That leaves the final question then: what about the case of a white girl doing black face to go as Storm wherein she intends NO offense and is merely wanting to show off her makeup prowess and be more authentic? Will I defend this? Yes. I would defend this. There is no ill-intent in her heart, and I cannot assign her blame for what actors did way over fifty years ago. However, I would advise her NOT to do it. Blackface is a trigger offense. Regardless of intent, it will instantly offend, and you will have to explain yourself. Your explanations will fall on deaf ears, and your night will be ruined. Just don’t do it. Besides, wearing thick make-up all night is terribly uncomfortable and and leads to blemishes.

In regards to Hillary Clinton, it is all coincidence. Her husband getting $500,000 for less than an hour of speaking. That soon after that, the US government signed off on a deal where a Russian company acquired the rights to 20% of the uranium in the United States. That soon after that 7 shareholders involved in the purchase just happened to think to themselves that the Clinton Foundation would be the best charity to give $150 Million dollars. That leading up to the 2016 election, foreigners were dumping money into the Clinton Foundation out of the kindness of their hearts, but that this kindness ended pretty much immediately after Hillary lost. That a Russian dossier was found which prompted the FBI to let Obama know that Trump was colluding with the Russians, which caused Obama to launch an investigation into this. Naturally, they had to have surveillance over members of Trump’s team. That Trump has DEEP ties to Russia. That Muller is always on the verge of filing criminal charges. That we have a sitting President who as been investigated for over a year with all these ties to our number one geopolitical foe…and he is left in power.

That’s what they expect you to believe. Let me ask you as simple question…does any of that make sense? Or do the fact patterns suggest a trail of corruption and abuse of power culminating with the abuse of power to influence the election, and when that failed, to undermine a duly elected President?

Jane Fonda came out and said she knew for a year about Harvey Weinstein, but she did think it was her place to tell about it. Apparently, giving aid and comfort to the Viet-Con is cool, but trying to stop rapes and other sexual misconduct goes too far. Her ilk are hypocrites. Given the pervasive nature of sexual misconduct in Hollywood, I hazard to guess that they didn’t say anything because they were afraid of losing their livelihood. Now that everyone knows Hollywood’s dirty little secret, these faux-feminists are afraid that their brand has become tarnished the the Truth. Now, suddenly, they are sickened by Harvey Weinstein. And I am sickened by their hypocrisy. Now, Harvey Weinstein is offered up as a sacrificial lamb. Hollywood is denouncing him at a record pace, but they only seek to do so to protect their industry, that business of usual may continue. For these directors and casting agents and stars want the continued extra-curricular activities. We should not believe there is any redemption until there is a cleansing. A night of the long knives. A culling. Not just firings, but legal recourse. People thrown in jail for rape and accessory to rape. Financial restitution for sexual harassment. Unless Hollywood turns into a figurative slaughterhouse, I will not believe them.

Sadly, it’s a bit unconstitutional. But what has the Government ever done in healthcare that isn’t? I wish the Republicans weren’t so useless and would have made this into legislation instead of it being an executive order.

That being said, this is a potential game changer in health insurance. Basically, it allows a class of people (say, Plumbers, Accountants, etc) to form an association for which to buy health insurance. So instead of a sole proprietor having to buy an expensive plan, they can buy it as a group, saving a ton of money. He is also allowing this to go on ACROSS state lines. So you are forming massive groups and increasing competition. This is amazing.

He is also allowing for you to choose to buy what was once considered substandard plans. Why does a healthy 23 year old have to buy full coverage when they really want a super cheap plan to cover catastrophic accidents and cancer. This makes economical sense. But what you want does not matter to them. They know what is best for you.

That’s what really rubs me the wrong way…the sheer arrogance that they think they know what’s best for you. What’s even worse is that there is a whole host of people that agree. They clap their hands and say, “Yes! You know what’s best for me. Thank you for not making me think for myself.”

All the late night comedians… sorry… experts demand a real conversation about gun control. So… lets have one!!!!!

1 – The GOP is not beholden to the NRA. Oh…they want to pretend that the Republicans are…but they are beholden to their constituents. You see, we gun owners joined the NRA because we love our Second Amendment. We do not love the Second Amendment because the NRA tells us to. Instead, we joined them because we already did love our Second Amendment. That is why the Republicans do not want to seek further gun control, because it would royally piss us off and they would lose in a primary. What I will say is that this makes me suspect that the Left is beholden to THEIR special interest. In other words, if you think the other side is beholden to a lobby group and not the voters, it is probably because your side is beholden to a lobby group over their voters. This would explain why the Left is for open borders despite it hurting the black citizens they claim to care about.

2 – This shooter (as most shooters in recent history) acquired their guns subject to background checks. In fact, all the measures the Left demands would not have prevented these shootings. Assault weapons ban? Did nothing to reduce crime. Background checks? Don’t seem to be working. The Left demands we do SOMETHING! Sorry… but why do something if it is going to be ineffective? That’s just stupid.

3 – The Second Amendment is about protecting yourself from the Government. It is not about hunting. It is not about self-defense. Those are nice perks, but they are not the main reason. I am much more worried about an out of control government than I am about a random madman. As long as that is the case, you will never convert me to the side of gun control.

4 – As far as mental illness goes, there is a reason why I am hesitant to support these measures. I actually know people that suffer from depression and anxiety, and they refuse to get help. Why? Because they know it will go on their record and they fear the government will use it to take their guns. Also, if a spouse or family member suffers from these conditions, their rights would be forfeited as well. As such, I can understand why they wont’ get help, and that is a shame.

5 – If you don’t like people having the right to keep and bear arms, then you have an option. Amend the Constitution. Until you do so, you have no right to abridge the freedom to keep and bear arms. But they will never do this because they know they cannot win this argument. The Left wants a totalitarian government. They just want one they agree with. Could you imagine if the Right sought the same liberty to change the First Amendment at whim? The right to an abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, but they will declare that that is absolute. Amazing, really.

6 – All the people calling for gun control are in big cities. They are not isolated by large tracts of land. Police are nearby. Or they live in gated, nice communities. Or they have their own armed guards. What about the rest of us?

7 – More people are stabbed to death in any given year over being killed by long guns.

8 – They are being disingenuous. Granted, an AR-15 has the range can accessories (drum clips, etc) to make the long range, open venue ambush a reality. But do you think the Left would stop the push to gun control if it was just a guy showing up in a crowded store on black Friday and using a sawed off shotgun/pistols/etc to kill people? Of course not. Let’s be honest: any gun control measure must at the end of the game conclude with a total gun ban. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time.

9 – Which brings me to the final point. Guns should be made illegal…that way, no one can buy them…like drugs. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I had a black friend unfriend me because of my support of Trump. I had known the guy for probably thirty years or more at this point. However, since I voted for Trump, I am a racist. It doesn’t matter that I voted for Ben Carson (a white sell-out in his opinion) or that my wife is Asian. Nope…I am a white supremacist. That is what the Left and Hollywood and the Media has accomplished. I have not heard of a single Trump supporter demanding their friends support Trump or end the friendship. I have heard plenty of (whatever the hell you wanna call them) demand you DENOUNCE Trump or they will not be your friend. This is akin to emotional blackmail. The Left has not made it an intellectual argument. Instead, they have stipulated clearly: If you support Trump, you are a white supremacist, or a racist, or whatever bigoted term you choose. Surely, you have no rational reason for choosing to vote for Trump other than your hatred of the “lessor races.” I hate to break it to you, but people voted Trump for a variety of reasons. What the Left/Media/Etc seeks to do is to separate people and prevent them from talking, and I hate to say that they appear to be successful.

I pity my old friend. He has been brainwashed so completely, his mind an empty husk that can only be filled by the propaganda of what he has been told. Cutting off all voice of opposition, he will be forever beholden to the powers that be. He will forsake friends that would help him for the meaningless lies that drip from his party’s mouth. Winding up with nothing. For his party does not care for him. They use him as all parties do. Obama will not appear to help him when he needs it. Clinton will not appear to help him when he needs it. Kaepernick will not show up to help him when he needs it. I might have. But now I will not, and I have nothing but absolute pity for him.